Water and Fertilizer Use Efficiency in Subirrigated Containerized Tomato
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
water Article Water and Fertilizer Use Efficiency in Subirrigated Containerized Tomato Ariel Méndez-Cifuentes 1, Luis Alonso Valdez-Aguilar 1,*, Martín Cadena-Zapata 2, José Antonio González-Fuentes 1, José Alfredo Hernández-Maruri 1 and Daniela Alvarado-Camarillo 3 1 Departamento de Horticultura, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Saltillo 25315, Coahuila, Mexico; [email protected] (A.M.-C.); [email protected] (J.A.G.-F.); [email protected] (J.A.H.-M.) 2 Departamento de Maquinaria Agrícola, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Saltillo 25315, Coahuila, Mexico; [email protected] 3 Departamento de Ciencias del Suelo, Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Saltillo 25315, Coahuila, Mexico; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 19 March 2020; Accepted: 3 May 2020; Published: 7 May 2020 Abstract: Greenhouse cultivation is highly efficient in the use of water and fertilizers. However, due to intensive production, the greenhouse industry applies ample amounts of water and fertilizers. An alternative to minimize water and nutrient loss is zero-leaching systems, such as closed-loop subirrigation. The objective of the present study was to compare the water and fertilizer use efficiency in containerized tomato plants grown in a subirrigation system and a drip irrigation system. Subirrigated plants exhibited lower biomass than drip-irrigated plants. However, the amount of nutrient solution required to restore evapotranspirated water was lower in subirrigation. The yield was marginally decreased in subirrigated plants compared to drip-irrigated plants. The amount of nutrient solution required to produce 1 kg of fresh tomatoes was 22 L in subirrigation, whereas in drip irrigation, plants demanded 41 L. The total nitrogen applied through the nutrient solution was 75% lower in subirrigation than in drip irrigation, while the phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium applied was 66%, 59%, 70% and 74% lower, respectively. We concluded that the subirrigation system proved to be more water- and nutrient-efficient than the drip irrigation system due to the zero leaching of the nutrient solution, the lower number of irrigation events required and the lower nutrient demand of plants. Keywords: zero-leaching watering systems; drip irrigation; greenhouse vegetable crops; water scarcity 1. Introduction Water is one of the most important resources. It is used for household and industrial consumption, as well as for agricultural production [1]. Agricultural production systems are the largest consumers of water [2–4]; the irrigation of agricultural crops has allowed for the raising of yields and the stabilizing of food production and prices, which in turn has permitted the achievement of food security in many countries [5]. Groundwater is by far the main source of potable water (at least 50%) and water for agricultural irrigation (43%) [6]. Nonetheless, excessive use of water because of inadequate irrigation practices has caused overexploitation of aquifers, reduced water quality due to pollution and decreased groundwater tables [7,8]. Greenhouse cultivation provides food products of high quality all year round and, in terms of yield and gross income, it is highly efficient in the use of water and fertilizers due to the decrease in Water 2020, 12, 1313; doi:10.3390/w12051313 www.mdpi.com/journal/water Water 2020, 12, 1313 2 of 10 potential evaporation and the application of advanced irrigation technologies, such as drip irrigation and hydroponics [9]. However, in spite of its high efficiency, due to its intensive use and high yields, the greenhouse industry applies more water and fertilizers on a surface area basis compared to any other agricultural system, greatly contributing to the depletion and pollution of water reservoirs. Reducing the water and fertilizer amounts used for greenhouse production is thus important due to availability and pollution concerns. In fact, greenhouse growers fear the scarcity of water of good quality much more than its cost [9]. A strategy to further increase water and fertilizer use efficiency in greenhouse production is to adopt cultivation systems that collect and reuse irrigation water by using closed-loop irrigation systems [10–12]. Soil pollution in greenhouses is also an issue of utmost importance. In Europe, for example, concentrations of NO3−-nitrogen (N) up to 2000 kg 1 ha− were recorded in a 100 cm soil depth underlying commercial greenhouses [13], while in the 1 United States, reports indicated concentrations higher than 2300 kg ha− in the soil under decades-old greenhouses [14]. Vegetable production under controlled environment systems has allowed yield and quality increases due to the higher fertilizer rates and water inputs [15]; for example, N rates for some 1 containerized nursery plants range from 1067 to 2354 kg ha− per year, which is 10–15 times higher than that recommended for field crops [16]. Common practices for greenhouse production include surface irrigation systems with no recirculation of the nutrient/fertigation solution, which is not environmentally friendly [17,18]. The loss of water and nutrients in such irrigation systems is caused by high leaching rates as the water supplied surpasses the water retention capacity of the growing medium [18,19]. Unfortunately, high leaching rates are required to avoid salt buildup in the growing media. Combining high fertilizer rates with an inadequate irrigation system results in increased leaching, and thus, in increased groundwater pollution [20]. Thus, the efficient use of water is one of the fundamental factors to guarantee food production [21]. Establishing innovative irrigation water management may contribute to the mitigation of negative issues related to climate change [22]. An alternative to minimize water and nutrient loss to the environment for soilless cultivation of vegetable species is zero-leaching systems, such as subirrigation [23–25]. Closed irrigation systems are an interesting and promising method to maximize water and fertilizer use efficiency compared to conventional open irrigation systems [2,10,23], as the nutrient solution that is not retained by the growing medium is recirculated for reuse in the next irrigation event [15,17,26–28]. Subirrigation systems have been assessed for containerized greenhouse ornamental plants, which have demonstrated increased water and nutrient efficiency [15,29,30] and increased growth [12]. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to the use of subirrigation for containerized vegetable species [31–33] such as greenhouse tomato. The objective of the present study was to define water and fertilizer use efficiency in containerized tomato grown in a subirrigation system. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Cultural Conditions and Plant Material The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse at Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, in Northeast Mexico (25◦2304200 N Lat., 100◦5905700 W Long., 1743 m above sea level). Weather data were collected from a weather station located in the greenhouse. Mean maximum, mean minimum and mean temperature for the study duration were 25.7 ◦C, 14.4 ◦C and 20.1 ◦C, respectively, while maximum, minimum and mean relative humidity were 92%, 43% and 68%, respectively. Mean seasonal 2 1 photosynthetically active radiation was 389 µmol m− s− . Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Climstar 20 cm tall transplants with two fully expanded leaves were planted on 26 August 2017, into 13 L black polyethylene containers (one plant per container) filled with a mixture of sphagnum moss, coconut fiber and perlite (40%, 40%, 20% v/v) to a height of 27 cm. 1 Initial medium pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were 5.7 and 0.8 dS m− , respectively. Water 2020, 12, 1313 3 of 10 2.2. Irrigation Systems In this experiment, a subirrigation system was designed in order to compare the water and fertilizer use efficiency against drip irrigation. The subirrigation system consisted of rigid plastic trays/troughs (69 39 16 cm; length, width and height) with two 1-plant containers each. Containers × × were placed 30 cm apart within the row, and rows were kept 120 cm apart. Each tray/trough had a system of polyvinyl chloride pipes and valves for irrigation and drainage of the corresponding nutrient 1 solution, which was pumped with a 4 HP pump. Subirrigation started when the growing medium registered a moisture tension of 10 KPa measured with a tensiometer (Irrometer Model MLT, Riverside, CA, USA), with a flooding depth and duration of 15 cm and 30 min, on which the containers remained standing in the nutrient solution. The unabsorbed solution was drained back into a 200 L storage tank for reuse in the following irrigation event and renewed every 15 days. The pH of the nutrient solution was adjusted to 6.0 0.1 prior to irrigation with ± H2SO4 (0.1 N). The evapotranspirated nutrient solution was replenished with fresh nutrient solution to complete the initial volume of the storage tank. The drip surface irrigation system consisted of two emitters dispensing a total of 2 L h 1 of nutrient solution per container, and irrigation was conducted · − when the substrate moisture tension reached 10 KPa, with enough solution to achieve a 30% leaching fraction. The experimental unit for the subirrigation treatment consisted of two containers (i.e., two plants) placed on a single tray/trough. The drip irrigation treatment also had two one-plant containers per replication. 2.3. Nutrient Solutions 1 2 2+ + Basic nutrient solution contained (meq L− ): 14 NO3−, 2 H2PO4−, 8 SO4 −, 11 Ca , 9 K and 4 2+ 1 Mg (EC = 2.4 dS m− ). During the vegetative phase, the basic nutrient solution was applied at 120% concentration. However, from the blooming of the first to the third truss, the concentration of the basic 1 nutrient solution was decreased to 70% (EC = 1.7 dS m− ), and from the third to the fifth truss it was at 1 50% (EC = 1.2 dS m− ). The fertilizer-grade salts used for preparation of the nutrient solutions included: 5[Ca(NO3)2 2H2O] 1NH4NO3, MgSO4 7H2O, KNO3,K2SO4, KCl, HNO3 and H3PO4.